As an academic working on understanding & how to get the best possible nature outcomes for #Biodiversity #NetGain #BNG, let me share a major worry that I see barely discussed at all, & which unaddressed could decimate the biodiversity impacts: 'cost-shifting'. /1
Cost-shifting occurs when an offsetting / biodv compensation policy is introduced under the rationale that nature conservation is underfunded, so we need new private finance to make up the shortfall. So, we set up offsetting to charge developers for their biodv impacts. /2
Fundamental idea here is that offsetting provides funding that is *additional* ie would not have been provided before. So, it assumes that conservation funding post-introduction of offsetting = funding from government before + funding from private sector through offsetting. /3
Framed this way, offsetting is good, as it adds to the total conservation budget. In fact, in theory, offsetting should cancel out all of the negative impacts of development, so 'core' government cons funding can be used purely for improving biodv & not mitigating impacts /4
However. What if governments use this new revenue stream from the private sector as an argument to reduce their own conservation spending? In this case, total conservation spending might stay the same, just with less public, & more private, financing /5
This means that the offset funds are no longer *additional* ie they don't provide a source of funding that did not occur beforehand. This undermines a huge reason for introducing offsetting in the first place from a biodv perspective /6
Mind you, offsetting might still be better than no offsetting, but for another reason - it wouldn't be cos offsetting compensates for the impact of development - it would be cos offsetting disincentivises biodv impacts initially, like a 'sin-tax' (eg carbon tax) /7
We write about that here sciencedirect.com/science/articl…, as do others here sciencedirect.com/science/articl… /8
Cost-shifting is real. @DivyaNarain1 found it in the Indian system here conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…, @martine_maron @Ascelin discuss it here conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.111… Connors finds evidence in Australian Capital Territory here core.ac.uk/download/pdf/2… /9
Problem is, cost-shifting is hard to track, as it requires tracking opaque funding for conservation through the public sector over time. In the UK, this would probs manifest as changes in local authority nature conservation budgets. /10
So, a plea to those working in @NaturalEngland @DefraGovUK @LGAcomms @CIEEMnet @iemanet @CIWEM @RTPIPlanners: please track conservation spending, & track if finance from Net Gain adds to *or displaces* existing spending. /11
To regenerate England's wounded nature, we *need* more funding, which means increasing public conservation budgets AS WELL AS utilising the finance from the private sector. If Net Gain displaces rather than adding, then it would become mostly greenwashing overall. /fin

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Sophus zu Ermgassen

Sophus zu Ermgassen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @sophusticated

4 Mar
As mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain inches closer, update all on what the data says the impacts of #BNG will currently be on England's nature, without further changes. 📢📢📢Updated results of our database of all development projects within councils with Net Gain policies 📢📢 /1
Database now spans ~6000 new homes & industrial, research, transport, energy, & health/social care infrastructures; ~800 individual habitat patches. It's now a pretty good picture of where #BNG is leading. Built with @wildbusiness & team of wonderful forward-thinking planners /2
Headline results: #BNG currently associated with a 36% loss of area devoted to non-urban habitats (so urban habitats cover 16% of total footprint of development boundaries under baseline, and 50% under post-dev scenario). BUT, urban is mostly replacing croplands & pasture /3
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!